Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 00:31 UTC
Return-Path: <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A211F1B2E33 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:31:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HfWTRfFdUYp6 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 481381B2A68 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:31:31 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79d16d000001b1c-ec-56ba816b3eb3
Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5D.E6.06940.B618AB65; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:16:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:31:29 -0500
From: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
To: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
Thread-Index: AQHRYB1ECWPEbpgBmkGOAll4U8oLIp8kNLwAgACRdwD//65WiQ==
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:31:29 +0000
Message-ID: <DB856591-F412-4AFE-98A8-25BAEE8738BC@ericsson.com>
References: <56B496CD.7020107@pi.nu> <96089BA7-51D0-4140-BE03-C5791937B48D@cisco.com> <40778BF9-D2BD-4050-9664-993852E2EC6B@cisco.com>, <CA24AB34-DFC8-498A-8CEA-A3FBB1ED97A3@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA24AB34-DFC8-498A-8CEA-A3FBB1ED97A3@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpgkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonUDe7cVeYwaKDihZL3vSxWfybO4fZ 4tbSlawWf/8+YnZg8ZjyeyOrx85Zd9k9liz5yeQxa3obWwBLFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG2x9b mAtmGlXsv9nK0sD4Wr2LkYNDQsBE4sQkxi5GTiBTTOLCvfVsXYxcHEICRxglfr3uZ4VwljFK 7Fo9jRmkik3AQOL/t+MsILaIgLrE3se32EAGMQtkSxxrZwcJCwsESBx/vpEJoiRQYtPbq2wQ tpPEk/69rCA2i4CqxMrXs8FG8grYS0z98AfsCCGB3YwSF3p5QGxOAVuJ6ed/gfUyAh33/dQa sJnMAuISt57MZ4I4WkBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/9YIc4xkPi3gRmiXFti2cLXUKsEJU7OfMIygVF0 FpJJsxA6ZiHpmIWkYwEjyypGjtLigpzcdCODTYzAeDkmwaa7g/H+dM9DjAIcjEo8vAbmu8KE WBPLiitzDzFKcDArifAGNwOFeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ8y51WB8mJJCeWJKanZpa kFoEk2Xi4JRqYJx9XuVYiEJID6e8Uf3x7EPHDus9P7/34B2mnH3J5w7dM3aXijw3+9ZflxjF S2ruyw95x84WFu0/9qe3+lRhpZH9qoWC7k5tO+Y7zTg867nZKWGryB6TsJu+6+zO3xf3FbpZ JJyodv3FpHNvPaqLGk1De074Pz2aNkOxfv1PxplnfmYsee726o8SS3FGoqEWc1FxIgBiXc/c kwIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_Gyu462WIhEXY4IIEr7j5uq3b_o>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:31:33 -0000
I was going to bring exactly same point. Over the last 6 months, in protocol/ services related modeling work we have put lot of effort trying to align with OpenConfig. Keeping this alignment with base MPLS model would be rather logical step. Regards, Jeff > On Feb 9, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a consolidated MPLS model introduced by OpenConfig, the 02 version publisehd in October of last year. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-02 > > It has a base model which then has three different sub-models defined in the hierarchy covering types of LSPs: static, IGP-congruent/unconstrained (routing-dependent), and TE/constrained. > > Thanks, > > Phil > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> > Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:43 > To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS > >> >> My preference wasn’t quite clear in the previous email, so let me state it explicitly - (1), IMO, MPLS base should reside off the root, and for (2) it might be worth dividing the subsequent models as either non-routing or routing, given that MPLS control plane e.g. LDP would be routing dependent, whereas static LSP _could_ not be. >> >> For (2), a hierarchy something like his works out (where non-routing is nothing but MPLS base) >> >> MPLS Base >> <non-routing> >> Static LSP >> <routing> >> Static LSP >> Dynamic LSP - LDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE, >> >> >> However, it creates an interesting challenge for aligning the yang models and while keeping the hierarchy simple. >> >> >> Is it worth having a focused team figuring out MPLS base staying off the root, whereas routing-dependent MPLS control plane protocols e.g. LDP staying off routing? >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Rajiv Asati >> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com> >> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 8:58 AM >> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS >> >>> Loa, >>> >>> I definitely agree (co-author hat off, and user hat on). Avoiding duplication and doing better organization would indeed be a good thing to do. >>> >>> 1) If MPLS base model (and subsequent models - LDP, TE etc.) augments the (IP) routing/routing-protocol, then it might not well apply to GMPLS. Is there an existing thought-process on this topic? >>> >>> Either ignore the above and have GMPLS argument mpls base model as is, or get MPLS base on an independent path (off of (IP) routing/routing-protocol) and work out the subsequent models. >>> >>> >>> 2) In terms of hierarchy, is the below envisioned? >>> >>> MPLS base => Static LSP and dynamic LSP >>> MPLS static LSP => >>> MPLS dynamic LSP => >>> LDP >>> mLDP (MP) >>> TE (RSVP-TE P2P) >>> TE (RSVP-TE P2MP) >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> Rajiv >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> >>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 7:34 AM >>> To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org> >>> Subject: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> We have had discussion among the MPLS, TEAS and CCAMP working group >>>> chairs - but as individual contributors, with chair half off. We agree >>>> that this discussion should be taken to the working group(s). >>>> >>>> The YANG models for MPLS and GMPLS are quite rapidly taking shape. MPLS >>>> and GMPLS technologies have traditionally been very close, but their >>>> development has been a bit disjoint. For the YANG models we would like >>>> to minimize duplication of models/work and think the structure should >>>> have a common the top, with specific technologies augmented below. >>>> >>>> The structure in general as well as the YANG model at the common top >>>> needs to be the generic and aligned across the output of at least >>>> CCAMP, MPLS and TEAS working groups. There has been good work >>>> progressing on TE specifics, e.g., see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te, but >>>> other areas remain. On the LDP side of the house draft-raza-mpls- >>>> ldp-mldp-yang is rapidly progressing towards working group adoption. >>>> >>>> The models defined in draft-saad-mpls-static-yang could serve as the >>>> start on filling some of the remaining gaps; covering core xMPLS >>>> definitions and static LSPs. There are a number of ways to make the >>>> structure intuitive and generic, and serve as a foundation for >>>> technology specific models. -- This effort can be viewed as the same >>>> type of work that was done for TE, see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te. >>>> >>>> We think it would be a good idea if the authors and the WG considers >>>> how to structure xMPLS definitions and static LSPs models to best >>>> foster common use across the different related models being worked on >>>> across different WGs. >>>> >>>> We are sending this mail in hopes of getting this discussion started. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Lou and Loa >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >>>> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpls mailing list >>>> mpls@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Phil Bedard
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)